Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


AnX

Get Windows XP x86 to recognize more than 4Gb with PAE?

Recommended Posts

On 11/20/2016 at 10:15 PM, jaclaz said:

There must be a communication problem of some kind.

If you use the HP USB format tool, it will make a PARTITIONED USB stick (unlike the "normal" Windows XP, where you CANNOT partition a "removable" device), so if you used that tool, you did partition the USB stick (evidently without knowing that you did so).

cfadisk.sys is a THIRD PARTY filter driver and it doesn't exist in XP, or in Server 2003.

What (the heck) is an "expandable" HDD? :w00t:

Does it expand (and possibly shrink)? :ph34r:

Anyway what is the relevance of it being 80 Gb (and old) ? :dubbio:

jaclaz


 

 Come on ,Now a days HDD Are beyond tb .

It is trruelly i think from 2004 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dibya said:

 Come on ,Now a days HDD Are beyond tb .

It is trruelly i think from 2004 or so.

Sure, and still that has no relevance whatever when talking of formatting or partitioning (or both), the concepts don't change with size.

jaclaz 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Sure, and still that has no relevance whatever when talking of formatting or partitioning (or both), the concepts don't change with size.

jaclaz 
 

THanks jaclaz for clearing all out.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have checked as thoroughly as I was able to, and, by now, I'm quite convinced MS did not release any further update to:
halmacpi.dll v. 5.1.2600.1106 (xpsp1.020828-1920), MD5 = 308709E92843DFF3A5CDCA069F6F5C61, released on Thu Aug 29, 2002 08:05:02 GMT, which is the version on the original SP1 (and on SP1a, of course), until they eventually released the SP2 package, of course, which includes:
halmacpi.dll v. 5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158), MD5 = DFCE51FD96909D1B97D4A1A72D060D77, released on Thu Aug 29, 2002 08:05:02 GMT, and while there are other varieties of hal.dll, halmacpi.dll is the one that's relevant to break the 3.XX GiB limit by activating PAE...
And this means that the newest version that can be used is 5.1.2600.1106, and no other build exists after that and before SP2. Did I overlook any obscure MS hotfix? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dencorso said:

I have checked as thoroughly as I was able to, and, by now, I'm quite convinced MS did not release any further update to:
halmacpi.dll v. 5.1.2600.1106 (xpsp1.020828-1920), MD5 = 308709E92843DFF3A5CDCA069F6F5C61, released on Thu Aug 29, 2002 08:05:02 GMT, which is the version on the original SP1 (and on SP1a, of course), until they eventually released the SP2 package, of course, which includes:
halmacpi.dll v. 5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158), MD5 = DFCE51FD96909D1B97D4A1A72D060D77, released on Thu Aug 29, 2002 08:05:02 GMT, and while there are other varieties of hal.dll, halmacpi.dll is the one that's relevant to break the 3.XX GiB limit by activating PAE...
And this means that the newest version that can be used is 5.1.2600.1106, and no other build exists after that and before SP2. Did I overlook any obscure MS hotfix? :unsure:

Is there any known reason to prefer an original pre-SP2 copy over a patched SP2 copy? I've only begun to look at this recently so I've read the relevant threads here but I'm not familiar with the subject beyond that.

The version of NTOSKRNL.EXE on a given machine is chosen by SETUP based on the CPU and so forth. I assume that the version of HAL.DLL is chosen in the same manner?
If that's the case would it not be possible that a different version of HAL other than HALMACPI.DLL will sometimes be chosen depending on the hardware?
If I'm correct on this it would mean that other versions of HAL should also be checked for any updated files and checked for the proper locations to patch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's complicated. The best alternative is to use all the most recent files, so that means the latest SP3 hal, kernel and ntdll files and use the Gavotte Rramdisk.sys (after disabling the paging executive ability to page on the OS-Kernel and Device-drivers area) to create a big ramdisk with all memory above ca. 3.3 GiB up to the top of memory. This is what I do on my machines (3 desktops and 3 notebooks), of which the most powerful is the one I'm posting from right now, an Asus P8Z68-V LX running a 3770K i7 with 16 GiB DDR3 RAM (of which XP sees 3.22GiB and the rest is a big 12,4 GiB ramdisk, containing all discardable things and the pagefile). This is the safe way to proceed. :yes:
Now, suppose you *want* to cause XP to see all the RAM. Then you'll have to patch the ntkrpamp.exe v. 5.1.2600.7146, which is feasible and works OK, and change the hal.dll (which is, in this case a renamed HALMACPI.DLL) by the most recent (in fact only) SP1 version of that file (5.1.2600.1106), because to patch correctly the latest SP3 file (5.1.2600.5573) is not feasible at all (because MS yanked off code galore from 5.1.2600.2180 onwards). Dibya says v 1106 works OK among the SP3 and post-SP3 files. I have no reason to doubt him, but I did not (yet) test that myself. And, of course, this must be tested on bare-iron to make sense, not on a complacent VM. Well, now you know the facts in a nutshell (as I see them, of course). HTH. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Now, suppose you *want* to cause XP to see all the RAM. Then you'll have to patch the ntkrpamp.exe v. 5.1.2600.7146, which is feasible and works OK, and change the hal.dll (which is, in this case a renamed HALMACPI.DLL) by the most recent (in fact only) SP1 version of that file (5.1.2600.1106), because to patch correctly the latest SP3 file (5.1.2600.5573) is not feasible at all (because MS yanked off code galore from 5.1.2600.2180 onwards). Dibya says v 1106 works OK among the SP3 and post-SP3 files. I have no reason to doubt him, but I did not (yet) test that myself. And, of course, this must be tested on bare-iron to make sense, not on a complacent VM. Well, now you know the facts in a nutshell (as I see them, of course). HTH. :)

:unsure:

I've tested it successfully on a machine with 32GB of RAM using patched NTKRNLPA.EXE and HALMACPI.DLL from SP3 (5.1.2600.5512). Of course "successfully" here means that it booted to the desktop, reported the correct amount of RAM on the System Properties tab, otherwise behaved normally, and Shut Down without issues. I haven't had time to run other tests, use it on a daily basis, or experiment further with that particular setup yet so I don't know if other issues may be present. rloew did verify the problem reported with USBPORT.SYS and verify that replacing it with the Server 2003 version fixes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long-term stability seems to be the main problem. Besides Geoff Chappell's info on this, the name to search for is Danila Galimov (aka Danil Galimov), who has performed the most extensive investigation on the matter, but whose reports are hard to come by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sp1 hal works flawlessly . I rename use following switch /kernel=k64.exe /hal=hal64.dll/PAE

@LoneCrusader

Please donot put sp3 hal it will cause some problem with system driver.

I am posting new patch as soon as possible at RYanVM

I tried little different patch mechanism for kernel

Edited by Dibya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Long-term stability seems to be the main problem. Besides Geoff Chappell's info on this, the name to search for is Danila Galimov (aka Danil Galimov), who has performed the most extensive investigation on the matter, but whose reports are hard to come by. 

A quick search yielded very few results as expected. Any issues I did see reported with the newer HAL however all were related to the USB problem that is solved by using the 2K3 version of USBPORT.SYS. The only way to know will be to set up such a system and use it on a daily basis for some time.

9 minutes ago, Dibya said:

Sp1 hal works flawlessly . I rename use following switch /kernel=k64.exe /hal=hal64.dll/PAE

@LoneCrusader

Please donot put sp3 hal it will cause some problem with system driver.

I am posting new patch as soon as possible at RYanVM

I tried little different patch mechanism for kernel

Which system drivers specifically? The USBPORT.SYS one is the only specific problem that I am aware of being reported.
Previously you suggested replacing all of the .SYS files in XP with the ones from Server 2003. This is most likely overkill and could create more problems than it fixes...
Such replacements should only be done on a case-by-case basis where an issue is discovered with the XP version and then the 2K3 version has been checked and verified to be free of missing NTOSKRNL functions first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LoneCrusader said:

Such replacements should only be done on a case-by-case basis where an issue is discovered with the XP version and then the 2K3 version has been checked and verified to be free of missing NTOSKRNL functions first.

Yes. And the latest possible build of the 2K3 driver used (preferably from the same KB as the XP driver being substituted or later), unless a good reason is found to use any previous version. And in any case, ideally just a very minimal number of files should be replaced in total. Of course, NTOSKRNL, HALMACPI and USBPORT are already known to be mandatory, but, even then, USBPORT is a simple transplant from 2k3, NTOSKRNL uses slight variations of the GC Patch, and nobody really agrees about the hal, except that it's fundamental... now build 1106 lacks lots of later patches but seems still better than a half-backed patch ov the later builds... but neither is really a good choice, from an ontologic point-of-view. :angel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LoneCrusader said:

A quick search yielded very few results as expected. Any issues I did see reported with the newer HAL however all were related to the USB problem that is solved by using the 2K3 version of USBPORT.SYS. The only way to know will be to set up such a system and use it on a daily basis for some time.

Which system drivers specifically? The USBPORT.SYS one is the only specific problem that I am aware of being reported.
Previously you suggested replacing all of the .SYS files in XP with the ones from Server 2003. This is most likely overkill and could create more problems than it fixes...
Such replacements should only be done on a case-by-case basis where an issue is discovered with the XP version and then the 2K3 version has been checked and verified to be free of missing NTOSKRNL functions first.

That time i am exsperimenting actually to get my usb dongel work.

I replace following they are compatible . Also fixes all hell problems.

usb8023.sys

usbehci.sys

usbohci.sys

usb8023x.sys

usbhub.sys

usbstor.sys

usbccgp.sys

usbport.sys

usbuhci.sys

usbd.sys

usbintel.sys

usbvideo.sys

hidparse.sys

usbscan.sys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About long term stability, I can say that I have used the Chinese patch for about a year and a half on my main pc, a Sandy Bridge notebook with 8GB of ram. It has always worked (and still works) flawlessly. I make an intensive use of virtual machines, so I often use more than 4GB of memory. No problem at all, other than the usb thing you are discussing about and that can be easily solved.

Moreover, I recently upgraded to 12GB memory: still no problem, even though I'm using Xp quite seldom (I've switched to Linux and I don't regret this...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,
im trying to find whole 32 bit more than 4 GB RAM update and tutorial how to install it.

Its possible just install patch on SP3 vanilla system? If not which additional patches are needed?
Were i can download last english version of this patch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tested Dibya PAE patch on X99 machine, its absolutely great with 920 MB - default 32 bit usable RAM from 16 GB on this MB, slow.. festival of swapping, now is pretty fast,
i didnt tested a lot of compatibility, just few games but its fastest XP with installed apps, which i had, maybe expect unsupported XP64.

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...